Once in a while, someone writes a column that leaves me enviously
exclaiming, "Darn! I wish I had written that!" Candidly, I do not often
find myself saying that, but I sure did when I read William Norman Grigg's
excellent column entitled "Casus Belli" (Latin for "Case for War") on
Monday, March 29, 2010. Read his column (even if you don't read the rest of
mine) at:

I want to try and expound on Grigg's outstanding analysis of the Hutaree
militia raid. In doing so, I am going to also expand upon Grigg's reference
to James Madison's trenchant treatise in Federalist 46.

Referring to the federal indictment against the Hutaree militia, that
alleged members were making preparations for potential armed conflict
against law enforcement officers as a "seditious conspiracy," Grigg astutely
noted, "If they were acquiring weapons and developing appropriate skills in
anticipation of defending themselves against government aggression, their
actions--while possibly conspiratorial in nature--don't amount to a crime.
This is particularly true in light of our cultural history, in which
sedition--agitation to change the existing political order--is our proudest
civic tradition."

Grigg then rightly observes, "Government is nothing more than the
rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government
contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. Thus the
indictment's description of Hutaree as 'an anti-government extremist
organization which advocates violence against local, state and Federal law
enforcement' is a product of rhetorical onanism [from Genesis 38:9--a great
analogy, Will]."

As a general rule, government is the most violent force on the planet. If
one wants to get a true perspective on the historical record regarding who
or what routinely produces the most violence and death, one should pick up a
copy of R. J. Rummel's book, "Death By Government." Since the end of World
War II, Communist China and Red Russia lead the pack when it comes to death
and brutality; however, the US government has inflicted its share of carnage
as well. For example, in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, the government in
Washington, D.C., has killed over 800,000 civilians (and this figure is a
conservative estimate noting the most credible resources possible).

Plus, does anyone remember the violence that our federal government enacted
upon the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas? Does anyone remember the
mother shot in the head while innocently holding her little baby in her own
home by a federal sniper near Ruby Ridge, Idaho (after her small son was
shot in the back by federal agents)? In fact, the list of civilians who have
been killed by federal law enforcement agents over the years is a very long
one. Granted, many of these killings were done in lawful self-defense; but
others amounted to nothing less than old-fashioned murder (and never was the
federal agent who committed the murder ever brought to justice).

If one wants to indict an "organization which advocates violence," then
surely the central government in Washington, D.C., should be indicted!

If Hutaree members were indeed planning AGGRESSIVE violence against
anyone--in the government or without--they deserved to be stopped. If,
however, they were simply preparing to DEFEND THEMSELVES against government
overreach or abuse--and would only resort to violence in an act of lawful
self-defense--they committed no crime and are but the most recent victims of
federal abuse of power. This is a question that will doubtless be determined
in a court of law.

To charge, however (as the indictment does), that Hutaree members (all 9 of
them!) planned "to levy war against the United States, [and] to oppose by
force the authority of the Government of the United States . . ." will take
some doing to make stick. As Grigg points out, "If Hutaree was preparing for
armed DEFENSE against criminal actions by government officials, this charge
is as pointless as a broken pencil. If their efforts to 'prevent, hinder,
and delay' various government initiatives were confined to activism, rather
than armed conflict, they are--in that particular--not substantially
different from hundreds or thousands of other groups."

The entire case against Hutaree appears to be based upon the testimony of an
FBI undercover agent inside the group. Placing agent provocateurs inside
groups such as Hutaree is a classic strategy of federal police agencies.
This part of the story was broken by the Wall Street Journal.

Using agent provocateurs is a long-favored tactic of both the Kremlin and
the White House. Joel Skousen's latest WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF contains an
extremely trenchant and insightful analysis of how Russia and the US have
used--and continue to use--this tactic.

Skousen writes, "A related tactic [to false flag operations] is the hiring
of agent provocateurs to infiltrate a group targeted for destruction and
induce radical elements of that group to perform crimes against innocent
civilians that will justify armed retaliation or arrest. With the sudden
surge in claimed terrorism in Russia and the arrest of the radical Hutaree
group in the US, it is helpful to review the role of false flag terror
attacks in Russia and the role of agent provocateurs in the US as we analyze
what's really going on."

Skousen further states, "As we move on to discuss the arrest of the radical
members of the Hutaree cult in Michigan, it is important to note that
virtually every prosecution of so-called domestic terrorism in the past
decade is owed to the infiltration of FBI informants. While none of us in
America dispute the need to gain intelligence on real threats to national
security, we have to question the propriety of training and pressuring
informants (most of which have been forced to accept the informant
assignment in lieu of a prison term for other crimes committed) to provoke
and induce angry and unstable dissidents to commit acts of terror.

"All too often, FBI 'informants' have been pressured by superiors to go far
beyond informing. They have provided weapons, explosives, and even acted as
the guiding hand to map out the strategy and tactics for performing the
deed. These things only come out reluctantly during trial, and even then I
suspect that we are never allowed to know the full extent of these
provocations."

To receive a sample of Joel Skousen's WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF or to subscribe to
this excellent newsletter (I highly recommend it), write to:

In addition, Will Grigg states that another major component of the
indictment that is worrisome is the charge that Hutaree is guilty of
"seditious conspiracy." As Grigg writes, "Whatever is eventually learned
about Hutaree, as things presently stand the indictment against it could
provide a template for 'seditious conspiracy' prosecutions involving
practically any group that endorses the use of defensive force to protect
citizens against government aggression.

"Indeed, the definition of 'conspiracy' used in the Hutaree indictment could
make a criminal out of anyone who reads Federalist Paper 46 in public,
thereby sharing James Madison's commendably seditious admonition that the
people preserve 'the advantage of being armed' in the event that
insurrection against the central government proves necessary in order to
preserve liberty."

Let's look a little closer at Federalist 46, written by Founding Father,
author of the US Constitution, and America's fourth President, James
Madison. In dispelling the fears of colonists toward a standing federal
army, Madison said in Federalist 46, "Let a regular army, fully equal to the
resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion
of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that
the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel
the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation,
a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth
part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number
able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an
army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be
opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in
their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for
their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing
their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia
thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular
troops."

Madison went on to say, "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the
existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and
by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple
government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far
as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms."

Could Madison be any clearer? He (and the rest of America's founders)
emphatically expected the militia of the "several States" to be universally
armed against the potential encroachment on liberty by the central
government, meaning: the citizenry must at all times be prepared to use
their arms against any aggressive nature of the federal government to
trample their freedoms.

This, of course, reinforces the founders' intent, that the 2nd Amendment
protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the express
purpose of providing the citizenry with the capability to repel (with
violence) any assault against their liberties by their own federal
government.

So, pray tell, would today's FBI categorize James Madison's statements in
Federalist 46 as "seditious conspiracy"? If so, perhaps we are closer to
tyranny than any of us wants to admit!

Furthermore, it is not lost to millions of Americans that this is the same
federal government (through Department of Homeland Security fusion centers)
that just recently characterized pro-lifers; people who support the 2nd
Amendment; people who oppose the United Nations and illegal immigration;
people who voted for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin; and Iraq War veterans as
"extremists" and potential "dangerous militia members."

But, once again, the federal government--along with their propagandists in
the major news media, including its artificial authority on militias, the
ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery, Alabama--is
able to use the Hutaree militia to demonize militias in general, and even
more damaging, to try and destroy the concept of constitutional State
militias in the minds of the American public.

Did members of the Hutaree intend to carry out aggressive violence against
law enforcement personnel? I have no idea. Until this story broke in the
national media, I had never heard of this group. I will wait for the facts
to come out--if indeed the federal government and national media even allow
the facts to come out.

I do know this: I do not trust the federal government to tell the truth
about anything! They did not tell the truth about the Branch Davidians at
Waco; they did not tell the truth about Randy Weaver; they did not tell the
truth about Gordon Kahl; and, if their track record is any indicator, it is
doubtful that they are telling the truth about the Hutaree militia. But we
shall see.

In the meantime, as William Norman Grigg opines, "There's reason to believe
that the Feds have expanded and escalated this ongoing enterprise to
exploit, and exacerbate, growing public hostility toward an increasingly
invasive and esurient government.

"Whether it is ever demonstrated that Hutaree intended to 'levy war' against
the U.S. government, this much is beyond serious dispute: The Homeland
Security state is unambiguously preparing for war with the public--in fact,
it has been doing so for a long time."

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and
pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America
was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution
Party. He and his wife, Connie, have been married for 37 years and have 3
children and 7 grandchildren. See Chuck's complete bio at:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not
charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact
and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for
permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an
interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address
is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida, 32526. When responding, please
include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all
respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Crackdown: State troopers seal off a road as the Feds conduct a tri-state operation to arrest members of the Hutaree "Christian militia."

The first thing that must be understood is that while the murder of any human being is the most serious crime one can commit, it is not necessarily a crime to kill a police officer.

Defensive use of lethal force against criminal aggression is morally legitimate and legally protected, even -- no, make that "especially" -- when the aggressor is clothed in the habiliments of the state's punitive priesthood. This is not the view of some obscure, unsavory self-styled Christian militia group from Michigan. It is the long-established view of the United States Supreme Court as expressed more than a century ago in the ruling John Bad Elk v. The United States.

John Bad Elk, a Lakota Indian living on a South Dakota reservation, shot and killed a tribal policeman named John Kills Back, who attempted to carry out an arrest without warrant or probable cause. Bad Elk was convicted of murder after the Judge instructed the jury (as paraphrased by the High Court) that "the policeman had the right to arrest [Black Elk] ... and to use such force as was necessary to accomplish the arrest, and that [Black Elk] had no right to resist it."

Under the common law, the High Court pointed out, Black Elk was not obliged to submit to an unlawful arrest, and he "had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest...." Furthermore, ruled the Court, "the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction when the officer had the right to make the arrest from what it does if the officer had no such right. What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed." (Emphasis added.)

Simply put: As a matter of law, a citizen has an unqualified right to use lethal force to defend himself against a criminal assault by a law enforcement officer. This is not "sedition"; it's stare decisis.

The federal indictment against the Hutaree "Christian militia" describes the group's alleged preparations for potential armed conflict against law enforcement officers as a "seditious conspiracy." Whether this constitutes a criminal conspiracy of any kind depends entirely on whether the group planned to commit aggressive violence against individuals.

If they were acquiring weapons and developing appropriate skills in anticipation of defending themselves against government aggression, their actions-- while possibly conspiratorial in nature -- don't amount to a crime. This is particularly true in light of our cultural history, in which sedition -- agitation to change the existing political order -- is our proudest civic tradition.

Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. Thus the indictment's description of Hutaree as "an anti-government extremist organization which advocates violence against local, state and Federal law enforcement" is a product of rhetorical onanism.

The same is true of the charge that the militia's members "did knowingly conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and other persons known and unknown" -- great googlymoogly, do federal prosecutors pay their scribes by the syllable? -- "to levy war against the United States, to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States, and to prevent, hinder, and delay by force the execution of any United States law."

If Hutaree was preparing for armed defense against criminal actions by government officials, this charge is as pointless as a broken pencil. If their efforts to "prevent, hinder, and delay" various government initiatives were confined to activism, rather than armed conflict, they are -- in that particular -- not substantively different from hundreds or thousands of other groups.

Once again, the gravamen here is the question of aggressive violence. As paraphrased by the Regime's media stenographers, the charges against Hutaree are digested into a "plot to kill law enforcement officers." This would allegedly entail murdering one policeman and then ambushing others who would attend the Soviet-style paramilitary ritual that occurs on those rare occasions a police officer is killed in the line of duty.

Rather than providing specific details, referring to particular witnesses, or alluding to other material evidence, the indictment repeatedly refers to Hutaree's "general concept of operations." To whose "concept" does this refer -- the specific, overtly stated intentions of the militia members, or the way those intentions were conceived by federal authorities or their allied left-wing "watchdog" activists? Was this "concept of operations" committed to print, or captured on an audio or video record? Was there a specific plan, or were there outbursts of ill-considered speculation or depraved wishful thinking?

In studiously vague language, the federal indictment alleges that "one officer in particular" had been identified as a potential murder target. Plotting to murder another human being is a crime, of course, as is preparing to murder others who would assemble for a funeral.

These matters are questions of fact dependent on evidence not outlined in the indictment. Given that cases of this kind often end in plea bargains before they go to trial, it's possible we may never learn what, if any, evidence supports the most serious charges against the group.

Hutaree, we are told, is a violent cult. FBI Special Agent Andrew Arena referred to Hutaree as typical of the "radical and extremist fringe groups that can be found throughout our society." It may well be a dangerous little sect; like nearly everyone else, I hadn't heard of the group prior to yesterday (March 28), so I can't offer an adequately informed opinion of its intentions. At least some of those involved in other citizen militia groups in Michigan were leery of Hutaree, suspecting that it was seeking to provoke a civil war.

Whatever is eventually learned about Hutaree, as things presently stand the indictment against it could provide a template for "seditious conspiracy" prosecutions involving practically any group that endorses the use of defensive force to protect citizens against government aggression.

Indeed, the definition of "conspiracy" used in the Hutaree indictment could make a criminal out of anyone who reads Federalist Paper 46 in public, thereby sharing James Madison's commendably seditious admonition that the people preserve "the advantage of being armed" in the event that insurrection against the central government proves necessary in order to preserve liberty.

The tri-state crack-down against Hutaree, which involved what was described as a "batallion" of state, local, and federal troops (there's little point in using the term "police" any more), is the largest but by no means only recent campaign of its kind.

Last week the Feds reeled in several members of a properly ignominious Connecticut neo-Nazi street gang calling itself the White Wolves.

The White Wolves crackdown followed the familiar outline:

A federal informant (in this case, a convicted felon acting as a "cooperating witness") infiltrates a tiny and all but inconsequential clique of petty criminals, incites them to commit an "overt" criminal act (in this case by asking them to sell him firearms). The feds then draw up a grandiose indictment depicting that the little knot of skinheads as a world-historic menace.

As is true of the case against the Hutaree militia, the White Wolves indictment is a bureaucratic confection -- a wedding cake-sized pile of rhetorical meringue concealing a criminal complaint the size of a small Twinkie.

The objective here -- and, most likely in the Feds' prosecution of the Hutaree militia -- is to induce at least one or more members of the targeted group to join the pool of infiltrator/provocateus for use against other targeted groups.

The dynamics of this routine are a bit like multi-level marketing: The federal handler -- usually an FBI Special Agent assigned to a Joint Terrorism Task Force -- serves as the "upline" to a small stable of provocateurs, each of which is highly motivated to create a large "downline" of similarly compromised assets. As with many other MLMs, nothing of value is actually accomplished, but the people at the top of the pyramid -- in this case, the Homeland Security bureaucrats -- make a very comfortable living.

In times of relative tranquility, that cynical exercise provides career security for Homeland Security functionaries. There's reason to believe that the Feds have expanded and escalated this ongoing enterprise to exploit, and exacerbate, growing public hostility toward an increasingly invasive and esurient government.

Whether it is ever demonstrated that Hutaree intended to "levy war" against the U.S. government, this much is beyond serious dispute: The Homeland Security state is unambiguously preparing for war with the public -- in fact, it has been doing so for a long time.

During a 1997 visit to the Battle Command Training Program at Ft. Leavenworth, author Robert Kaplan frequently heard "discussion of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the National Guard to act as a local police force once it has been federalized by the army in a civil emergency," he recalled in his book An Empire Wilderness. "The implication was that turbulence within the United States might one day require the act to be repealed."

Kaplan describes a round-table discussion of potential military action against domestic dissident groups. One Marine Major, referring to the Oklahoma City Bombing (an atrocity carried out by a former federal employee and "others" who remain "unknown"), declared: "The minute I heard about Oklahoma City, I knew who did it -- rednecks, the kind of guys from southern Idaho."

According to Kaplan, that officer and another of the same rank "suggested that `a time might come when the military will have to go domestic.'"

In the strictest sense, that was a treasonable utterance -- a threat, by people in a position with the means to carry it into effect, to wage war against the people of the "united States in Congress assembled."

When talk of that kind is indulged in by members of a tiny, disreputable club, it is labeled "seditious conspiracy" involving "weapons of mass destruction" -- that is, homemade explosives. When such talk reflects the shared opinion of armed functionaries of the Regime -- people with access to the largest and most destructive arsenal ever assembled, and a growing foreign body count demonstrating a willingness to use it -- this is a sober, responsible discussion of Homeland Security affairs.

Apparently, it's sound public policy for the government to wage war against the citizenry, but a federal offense to take notice of that fact.

Be sure to get your daily dose of sedition on Pro Libertate Radio, courtesy of the Liberty News Radio Network.

RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.

Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States. Into the administration of these a greater number of individuals will expect to rise. From the gift of these a greater number of offices and emoluments will flow. By the superintending care of these, all the more domestic and personal interests of the people will be regulated and provided for. With the affairs of these, the people will be more familiarly and minutely conversant. And with the members of these, will a greater proportion of the people have the ties of personal acquaintance and friendship, and of family and party attachments; on the side of these, therefore, the popular bias may well be expected most strongly to incline.

Experience speaks the same language in this case. The federal administration, though hitherto very defective in comparison with what may be hoped under a better system, had, during the war, and particularly whilst the independent fund of paper emissions was in credit, an activity and importance as great as it can well have in any future circumstances whatever. It was engaged, too, in a course of measures which had for their object the protection of everything that was dear, and the acquisition of everything that could be desirable to the people at large. It was, nevertheless, invariably found, after the transient enthusiasm for the early Congresses was over, that the attention and attachment of the people were turned anew to their own particular governments; that the federal council was at no time the idol of popular favor; and that opposition to proposed enlargements of its powers and importance was the side usually taken by the men who wished to build their political consequence on the prepossessions of their fellow-citizens.

If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered.

The remaining points on which I propose to compare the federal and State governments, are the disposition and the faculty they may respectively possess, to resist and frustrate the measures of each other.

It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage. But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side. The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States. Every one knows that a great proportion of the errors committed by the State legislatures proceeds from the disposition of the members to sacrifice the comprehensive and permanent interest of the State, to the particular and separate views of the counties or districts in which they reside. And if they do not sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare of their particular State, how can it be imagined that they will make the aggregate prosperity of the Union, and the dignity and respectability of its government, the objects of their affections and consultations? For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects. The States will be to the latter what counties and towns are to the former. Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest; that where on one occasion improper sacrifices have been made of local considerations, to the aggrandizement of the federal government, the great interests of the nation have suffered on a hundred, from an undue attention to the local prejudices, interests, and views of the particular States. I mean not by these reflections to insinuate, that the new federal government will not embrace a more enlarged plan of policy than the existing government may have pursued; much less, that its views will be as confined as those of the State legislatures; but only that it will partake sufficiently of the spirit of both, to be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the preorgatives of their governments. The motives on the part of the State governments, to augment their prerogatives by defalcations from the federal government, will be overruled by no reciprocal predispositions in the members.

Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

This article is about the cases we mention in our press release in regards to the HUTAREE. JJ is a great American Black man who loves America 1st. Hes been called a White Supremacist and all the other ADL/SPLC Hate names.
pk

Tom Cruises movie MINORITY REPORT - PreCRIME is trying to become reality kere in amerikkka. This is what we the free FEAR MOST WHEN POLITICIANS RUN AMUCK. Why are McInsane and LieberLie still allowed to represent we the free. Cant America do any better then these POS? Really?
pk

McCain and Lieberman's "Enemy Belligerent" Act Could Set U.S. on Path to Military Dictatorship
Glenn Greenwald calls the bill "probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades."
March 19, 2010 |

Senator John McCain (L) of Arizona listens as Senator Joe Lieberman (R) of Connecticut speaks during a press conference in Washington, DC. The two senators unveiled legislation Thursday aimed at requiring that suspected "high-value" terrorists face interrogation and trial by the US military, not civilian questioners and courts.
Photo Credit: AFP/File - Saul Loeb

On March 4th, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced a bill called the "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010" that, if passed, would set this country on a course to become a military dictatorship.

The word “terrorist” has assumed numerous presumptive connotations over the decades, and this trend of “redefining” the vicious label to suit certain governmental needs has only intensified in recent years, especially since 9/11. Its graduation as widely used political terminology gives it an almost archetypal quality, because it has the ability to trigger abundant and subconscious emotional reactions in the populace. However, these reactions are usually based on mass delusions: false ideas of what terrorism is, what it is not, and who is actually guilty of these loosely classified crimes. It is a weighted word, filled with projections, biases, and faulty perceptions.

Governments across the world, and organizations such as the UN, have considered “officially” categorizing what a terrorist actually is, but claim that they have been unable to reach an accord that satisfies everyone. I feel it is much more likely that ruling bodies, most especially the UN, would like nothing better than to keep the specifics of the term as hazy as possible for as long as possible. The more elusive it is, the more powerful it becomes to those elite minorities who wish to retain and centralize political control. While we tend to associate terrorism with Muslim extremism, because this is the image we have been force-fed for the past ten years, that association can just as easily be swayed or redirected to someone else depending on which person or people become most obstructive to the government’s immediate desires. At bottom, under the current cultural climate, anyone can be labeled a terrorist for any reason, even American Citizens liable for nothing more than exercising their Constitutional rights.

As our country spirals towards certain monetary derailment, scathing discontentment with the establishment is sure to arise. When trusted leadership betrays, when criminality becomes a political guideline, when the corrupt loot the world, burning the people alive in their ever expanding grip, invariably, defiance is born. The Globalists know this well. They have seen it time and again, and have learned from past mistakes. Instead of immediately attempting to crush this opposition of individualists, the Elites now preempt violence with “false cultural identification”; the public demonization of those who would inevitably rebel BEFORE they even do so, much like a murderer who admonishes his future victims for wanting to defend themselves. The wise man would find this tactic absurd, or insane, but wisdom is in short supply these days.

In this article, we will explore the steps that the Elites are taking to prime the masses for the label we will soon be hearing daily; “Homegrown Terrorist”. We will also take a look at the organizations and think tanks that manufacture this propaganda and mold it for public consumption…

Hutaree, And Pavlov’s Dog

Though the “Hutaree Militia” and their arrest have been widely publicized in the media, and the MSM has all but sentenced them as guilty in the eyes of the nation before a trial has even begun, I will retain judgment until all the facts are in. The incident has all the characteristics of a “Trojan Horse” disinformation maneuver, in which groups who oppose the government are infiltrated by men posing as members. A common occurrence in the 60’s and 70’s during the anti-Vietnam War movement, these federal moles would then purposely lure groups into illegal acts, or frame them outright. The main goal of this tactic is to topple the moral high ground that the challenging movement stands on, making them appear as corrupt as the governments they defend against. However, the manipulation goes much further.

Whether or not the Hutaree are actually guilty of the crimes they have been accused is really not the most relevant issue. What is relevant, are the false associations and connections made by the MSM in an attempt to not only demonize the Hutaree, but the entire Liberty Movement along with them.

glenn-beck-gadsden.jpg

While it is not uncommon for the globalist-controlled media to attack the Liberty Movement, the widespread anger over the recent passing of Obama’s unconstitutional health care bill and the Hutaree incident have opened certain doors for exploitation. The news is now awash in anti-patriot misinformation. Here are a few of the most prominent falsehoods being presented:

1) The Liberty Movement Is An Extremist Right Wing Element?: It may be a bit cliché to say, but people really do fear what they don’t understand. Half of the American populace have absolutely no clue what the “Right Wing” is, let alone what a “Right Wing Extremist” is. During the presidency of George W. Bush, the Liberty Movement railed against the Republican Party for tripling the size of federal government, for going to war in Iraq on false pretenses, for refusing to allow a truly independent investigation of 9/11 despite numerous inconsistencies and scientifically erroneous evidence in the official reports, and for illegal expansion of domestic wire tapping and spy programs against American citizens, including FISA, not to mention the Patriot Act and PDD 51, which give the executive branch legal authority to assume full control over the functions of government without checks and balances under any circumstance they see fit. In response, the MSM and others called us “liberal fanatics” and “communists”. Only a few years later, they now have the audacity to label us “right wing extremists”, as we call out the Obama Administration for supporting the exact same policies as Bush. The Time Magazine article below illustrates this well:

Many Americans do not comprehend the position of the Liberty Movement because they are still trapped in the fabricated world of the false “left / right” paradigm. The leadership of both parties, Democrat and Republican, are under the influence of the same corporate globalist interests, and this is evident in the fact they support nearly identical executive legislative actions that erode civil liberties and U.S. sovereignty. The illusion of the Left and Right is not substantiated by fact, but by the theater of media. Barack Obama’s rhetoric, for instance, has never matched his actions, and few if any of his campaign promises to end Bush-era injustices have been fulfilled.

As a country, we must stop living in the fantasy world of celebrity politics, a world in which what people say is more important than what they really do. This is where the Liberty Movement exists; in the plane between the phony realities of Left and Right, where “taking sides” is meaningless, where the only thing that is important is what is TRUE, and what is dishonest.

The attempt by the media today to brand us as “Right Wing” is merely a ruse to associate us with the much hated Neo-Con ideology (which is really socialist), and to continue perpetuating the lie of the current two party apparatus. In this way, they can marginalize us as a fringe element of a fake party, an element that people can be made to dread, instead of the birth of a new third party, which is what we really are.

2) The Liberty Movement’s Anger Over The Health Care Debate Makes Us “Dangerous”?: Last year, Neithercorp reported on the developments surrounding Obamacare and our personal belief that not only was the bill not practical, but that it was not meant to work at all:

‘ObamaCare’ will not come to fruition, for many reasons, but most of all because the U.S. is beyond indebted. The costs involved in nationalizing health care are enormous. The sales of U.S. treasury debt to foreign banks have plummeted over the past year, and they will continue to do so. Like Greece to the tenth power, America is on the verge of sovereign debt default. The government and the private Federal Reserve’s only recourse has been to create massive amounts of currency out of thin air to cover the mushrooming expense of keeping the economy afloat. Without the constant injections of liquidity into treasuries, our government would no longer be able to operate. Very soon, these injections will inflate the money supply to levels which will destroy our currency, throwing the financial system into chaos. And, in the midst of all this, the Obama administration decides to increase our budget deficit to record levels and introduce socialized health care? Of course people are angry! It is my suspicion, however, that this was the goal all along.

ObamaCare can be used to create intense divisions in the citizenry, as well as distract us from the economy. It can also be used to redirect the debate over expansion of government power. By introducing ObamaCare, the elites change the dynamic of the argument. Before, the contention was that the government’s size was unsustainable and would bankrupt the nation. Now, the argument is over the ethics of leaving people without healthcare, and the “necessity” of large government in supplying that care. The debate morphed from a clean cut examination of what we could afford, into a foggy morality play in which those who oppose government expansion are “uncaring”, “greedy”, or perhaps “evil”. The article below alludes to such accusations:

The message here is that proponents of private healthcare are “overreacting” to the legislation. Arguments that Obamacare is no more insidious than Medicare are highly disingenuous. Medicare is government ASSISTED health care, not government CONTROLLED health care. There is a very big difference, one which we refuse to ignore.

The Liberty Movement’s position on any issue has always been; do we have the money, and does the Constitution allow it? While it is unfortunate that the poor (I have been one of them) cannot afford health insurance, the cold hard reality is that we do not have the savings to fund collectivist healthcare, nor does the Constitution allow for government to dominate the healthcare industry, or force people to buy insurance they don’t want. This is not about little orphan Annie who needs a kidney transplant. Obama couldn’t care less. This is about putting those who call for smaller government in the position of being the “bad guy”, as well as making Federal influence over our private lives that much easier. The goal is to paint the movement as unfeeling, and without compassion, thus making it easier for the average American to see us as “terrorists” in the near future.

3) The Liberty Movement Is Driven By Racism?: This has to be my favorite disinfo talking point, mainly because of its blatancy. There was a time when all propaganda was so straight forward, simple, and shameless. Below is a Time Magazine article which is obviously trying to connect Constitutionalists and militias with racism and white power organizations:

This tactic does not need much explaining. First, I’ve been going to the Tea Parties for years, long before they were co-opted by Fox News, and I can say from firsthand experience that the Liberty Movement is composed of people from all racial, religious and political backgrounds. Many militias are also organized the same way.

The fact that the movement is fully opposed to illegal immigration is often used by the establishment to draw more false associations. The connection to which they allude is that since we are against illegal immigration, we are against all immigrants, especially Hispanic immigrants. This is nonsensical. We are against illegal immigration, for one, because it is ILLEGAL. I am not sure what is so complicated about this concept, but for some people, especially those who place themselves on the left end of our fake political spectrum, it is difficult to comprehend.

There are in fact legal channels one can take to immigrate to the U.S., as there are for any other country. If an American wishes to immigrate to Canada, he does not simply skip across the border and declare it so. He must follow legal guidelines, or be deported. This does not make Canadians biased against Americans, it makes them rational. If millions of us decided to lumber into Quebec and begin collecting on government programs that we never paid into, it would throw their entire economy into disarray. If we all offered our services to employers there at discount prices under the table, it would destroy their jobs market. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with what makes sense.

This is why polls show that a large percentage of minorities in the U.S. are also against illegal immigration, not just whites:

The purpose behind the racist label is evident. No one likes a racist, especially not a militant racist. The tactic is designed to plant assumptions in the minds of those unaware of the facts, especially Democrats, so that when a Liberty Movement representative engages them in discussion, they will automatically refuse to listen, regardless of how reasonable that representative may be. The blunt nature of the method reveals how desperate globalists are to keep as many Democrats as possible from joining the movement.

4) People Who Spread Liberty Movement Information Are As Threatening As Those In Militias?: The sudden push on the part of the current administration for the institution of the Fairness Doctrine is no fluke. It is also even less of a fluke that they are attempting to apply the Fairness Doctrine to the internet.

The Fairness Doctrine accomplishes two things for the establishment: First, it forces all media to define themselves as either Left, or Right, and then balances them accordingly, meaning all media would be strong armed into playing out the false paradigm forever, neither side ever changing or gaining an advantage. Second, it allows government to dictate what acceptable political discussion is and shut down those that stray from their guidelines. If the Fairness Doctrine were to be applied, it would not affect those gatekeeper news outlets that play the paradigm game; Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc. In reality, the only news sources that would be dealt a drastic blow would be those that straddle the line between left and right, or that deny the paradigm altogether; Liberty Movement sources.

I have noticed that this development has occurred in tandem with another more subtle strategy. While government moves to gain more influence over what news providers are allowed to operate, the MSM has moved to infer that Liberty Movement news sources are “instigating” violence, simply because they exist. While most of us are aware of the attempts to connect Alex Jones and his Infowars radio show with any violent gunman that happens to stumble out of the woodwork, there has also been an endeavor to link all Constitutionally based websites and radio with “extremist behavior”, as the below article shows:

All societies that are advancing towards fascism begin by singling out certain ideas as “dangerous” to the greater good. The very fabric of American life is centered on the protection of ideas, regardless of their origin. We do not prosecute people for their beliefs, no matter how much we might disagree. This is beginning to change though, and one can feel it in the air. The MSM is now producing a low droning hum of propaganda aimed at accusing liberty based news as accomplices in “extremist crime”. As if the general disenchantment and opposition to collectivist government would somehow disappear if we were not here to write our views and report on the facts.

The above list of establishment talking points demonstrates a discernable pattern. This pattern is engineered around the concept of “conditioning”. Like Pavlov’s dog, Americans are being prepared mentally to react to certain bells and whistles in a way that serves Elitist interests. In this case, instead of salivating every time they hear the words “militia”, “truth movement”, “patriot”, “Liberty Movement”, “Constitutionalism”, etc, they are meant to think “Hutaree”, they are meant to think “homegrown terrorist”. Of course, unlike Pavlov’s dog, human beings cannot be conditioned if they are aware, and they can even break their own conditioning if given the opportunity. This is why we are pummeled daily with a constant barrage of misinformation, so that we never get a chance to open our eyes and see who is hitting us. So, who is hitting us…?

miac-report1.jpg

The ADL And SPLC: Propaganda Machines Extraordinaire

Whenever you see a news story on almost any mainstream news channel, or read one in almost any newspaper dealing with the Liberty Movement and parallel movements, the chances are very high that the ADL (Anti Defamation League) or the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) had a hand in it.

The ADL was founded in 1913 (coincidentally, the same year as the private Federal Reserve), and poses as a sort of civil rights group and non-profit corporation. In truth, it is a multifaceted propaganda arm for globalists, much like the Council on Foreign Relations, which has been involved in, and implicated in, domestic spying as well as other illegal activities.

In 1993, the ADL was caught red handed employing spies like Roy Bullock, who infiltrated organizations ranging from the White Aryan Resistance, to the NAACP and Greenpeace. Interestingly, they were also caught spying on other anti-discrimination groups, such as the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee:

These spies compiled dossiers on thousands of American citizens and hundreds of non-violent groups. In the mid-80’s, they also terrorized certain peaceful assemblies for nothing more than free-speech. A method they are now applying to us.

Because the ADL is organized around the Jewish fraternal order of B’nai B’rith, some people make the mistake of assuming that they are a purely Israeli construct, however, they are actually a tool for Elitist activities, not just Israeli, and alphabet agencies such as the FBI and the CIA collude with them constantly. In fact, the government has only supported the ADL more since they were exposed in 1993, and the MSM reports their skewed statistics and baseless opinions as undeniable fact.

When interviewed by the MSM, ADL and SPLC representatives are rarely challenged by their interviewers on any issue, and an interviewee with an opposing viewpoint is almost never present. When they are present, the “journalist” and the SPLC/ADL representative attack them maliciously, using dishonest Alinsky Tactics, such as attempting to keep the person from speaking, or attacking the person’s character instead of addressing the information he presents. A good example is this interview on MSNBC with Chris Mathews and director of the SPLC, Mark Potok against Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers:

Oath Keepers is an organization of military and police members who are openly re-stating their support for the Constitution, over the shifting of government mandates, as all people in the armed forces are supposed to do. Yes, they must truly be a menace…

Notice that Potok and Matthews immediately generalize and dismiss every one of the Oath Keeper concerns on government as “dark conspiracy theory” without actually providing any tangible reasoning to support their claims, nor providing Rhodes any real opportunity to counter their accusations.The “conspiracy theory” redirection relies on an ignorant public, unaware of the numerous facts and evidence that support the Liberty Movement view. The ADL and SPLC hope that you and your family will take them at their word, instead of investigating the truth for yourself. That the term “conspiracy theory” will trigger a Pavlov’s dog reaction, a knee-jerk response that causes your mind to immediately close. They also commonly use terms like “white supremacist”, “Oklahoma City”, or names like “Timothy McVeigh” in the same breath as “Oath Keepers” and “Patriot Movement”. This is done deliberately, and if you watch a number of interviews involving the ADL/SPLC, you will notice that they do it as a rule. Again, the attempt is to link the unseemly actions of one man, or one small group, to the whole of the movement, and to the ideology of liberty.

When reason is applied, and research is undertaken, Mark Potok’s arguments appear juvenile and lazy. The government’s own legislation is what created the Liberty Movement’s concern over martial law and loss of Constitutional freedoms. This legislation includes those mentioned above, like the Patriot Act and PDD 51, along with the Civilian Inmate Labor Program, and new legislation drafted by Republican, John McCain, and Democrat, Joe Lieberman (another example of the fake left/right working together), called the “Enemy Belligerents Act”:

This new act allows, among other things, for the treatment of U.S. citizens who dissent as enemy combatants, for the indefinite detention of these citizens without trial, and to be held under military jurisdiction. It also allows for “enhanced interrogation techniques”, i.e. torture.

Bills like this are introduced to Congress yearly, and yet I have to watch Mark Potok on MSNBC call my concerns and the Liberty Movement’s concerns “conspiracy theory”?

terrorist-hotline2.jpg

When We Are All Homegrown Terrorists…

Anyone who can’t see where all this is leading would have to be cognitively impaired. I, for example, am just a writer, but under the broad definitions laid out in government legislation, I could easily be considered a threat to national security. Could my articles not inspire resentment in someone? Could the facts I present not instill a need for “dissent”, or even self defense in the event that the establishment does institute martial law? What about people who aren’t writers, but regular Americans who happen to speak openly about their suspicions of where the country is heading? Are they “enemy belligerents” and combatants?

If the ADL and the SPLC had existed in the early days of the American Independence Movement, before a shot was ever fired, they would have called men like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson “terrorists”, good men, who only wanted to be free. There is little difference between our situation then, and our situation now, except that the terminology has changed, and indeed, we know even more about who we are fighting.

While being categorized as a homegrown terrorist may be a frightening prospect, what other people are led to believe about us is not so important. What is important is that we do not start to believe it ourselves. That we are not made to feel guilty for wanting to determine our own destinies, for wanting to keep government out of our lives and our children’s lives. We are not the instigators of this conflict, we are not the antagonists of this story. In the end, we are the deciders of this conflict. We are the authors of this story.

It is possible we will soon see an acceleration of our own malignment over the coming year. We will be ridiculed, condemned, and perhaps some of us even incarcerated. Violent attacks against innocent Americans will likely be carried out, some by real and misguided people, some engineered by government. We cannot allow these acts to be forced upon us as implied persona. We cannot allow others to speak for us, because others are unlikely to speak the truth. And most crucial of all, we cannot ever be afraid to speak for ourselves. The ultimate triumph for the Elites would be our silence.

Affirm your freedoms as an unbound man, cut the air, forceful and clear, let the world listen, and never stop.

To learn more about propaganda techniques, check out our recent article: Disinformation Tactics: The Methods Used To Keep You In The Dark.

Posted on Wednesday, April 7th, 2010 at 2:36 pm in the category:All Posts. Comment RSS 2.0 feed. Comment it , or trackback this post.
26 Responses to “One Day Soon, We’ll All Be “Homegrown Terrorists””

1. larrytm says:
April 7th, 2010 at 4:49 pm

Very good article. Too bad that TPTB are able to exploit the naivety of the public when it comes to understanding what liberty and freedom is all about. If they public only understood one simple idea it would be enough. That is it is in everyones best interest to be free to state their opinion and question whatever the government does. In short, be aware of the constitution and be prepared to openly defend it.
2. WishGranted says:
April 8th, 2010 at 4:00 am

Gio Thank you for setting the example of speaking your mind openly.

I am uncertain if your very detailed veiw of the situation increased peoples fear or strengthed their resolve?

I understand you need to present the problem so we can solve it.

I would appreciate a higher percentage of SOLUTIONS in such a shocking article that could actually backfire; sepreating instead of uniting.

Maybe I have been overseas for too many years, and your readers automatically recall Thomas Paine’s approach: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

Is it possible to point out that most of our Founding Fathers could easily be persecuted/prosecuted in todays atmosphere?

I was hoping after “Survive anything: Chaptter 1..” you would follow with How to survive psychological warfare.”

May I suggest:

The Art and Science of Psychological Operations: Case Studies of Military Application. In two volumes (DA PAM 525-7-1; 525-7-2).

Around pages 432+ (sorry, the book isn’t in front of me now) are detailed strategies and methods (including Pavlov) of PSY OPS aimed at breaking the cohesivenss of a society/organization.

Most importantly there is an explanations of how a society that is dedicated and unitied common core values IS THE BEST RESISTANCE to the manipulation tactics of fear.

As well, Eckharte Tolle’s book ‘the new earth’ explains how Jesus and the greatest people thru history were able to withstand the onslaught of the fear machine.

I hope this adds to the solutions we are all responsible to bring to the table of an Enduring America.
3. Survival4Chicks » Blog Archive » One Day Soon, We’ll All Be “Homegrown Terrorists” says:
April 8th, 2010 at 11:02 am

OKLAHOMA CITY – Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.

"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

Thus far, the discussions have been exploratory. Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates. Critics also asserted that the force could inflame extremism, and that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs.

"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma. The state observes the 15th anniversary of the anti-government attack on Monday. Such actions could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals," he said.

But the militia talks reflect the frustration of some grass roots groups seeking new ways of fighting recent federal initiatives, such as the health reform plan, which requires all citizens to have health insurance. Over the last year, tea party groups across the country have staged rallies and pressured politicians to protest big government and demand reduced public spending.

In strongly conservative states like Oklahoma, some legislators have also discussed further action to fight federal policies, such as state legislation and lawsuits.

State Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, a Republican candidate for governor who has appealed for tea party support, said supporters of a state militia have talked to him, and that he believes the citizen unit would be authorized under the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The founding fathers "were not referring to a turkey shoot or a quail hunt. They really weren't even talking about us having the ability to protect ourselves against each other," Brogdon said. "The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government."

Another lawmaker, state Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City, said he believes there's a good chance of introducing legislation for a state-authorized militia next year.

Tea party leader J.W. Berry of the Tulsa-based OKforTea began soliciting interest in a state militia through his newsletter under the subject "Buy more guns, more bullets."

"It's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that," Berry said. "This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."

State militias clearly are constitutionally authorized, but have not been used in recent times, said Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and an expert on the Second Amendment. "Whether someone should get a militia to go toe-to-toe with the federal government ... now, that strikes me as kind of silly," he said.

Some conservative legislators in Oklahoma say talk of a militia, which would be privately recruited, armed and trained, goes too far.

"If the intent is to create a militia for disaster relief, we have the National Guard," said Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, a retired Army lieutenant colonel. "Anything beyond that purpose should be viewed with great concern and caution."

Federal authorities say that radical militia groups have not emerged in Oklahoma, unlike many other states, in part because of the legacy of the Oklahoma City bombing. On April 19, 1995, an anti-government conspiracy led by Army veteran Tim McVeigh exploded a truckbomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people.

Last month, FBI agents conducted a raid on the Hutaree militia group in southern Michigan and accused members of plotting to kill law enforcement officers.

(This version CORRECTS the spelling of building from Alfred P. Murray to Murrah.)

Dont worry.. we will all be on the Terrorist watch list soon enough. First it starts with the ones that are easily demonized by the lying KONTROLLED press. And then they start going down the line.

These folks arent terrorist. Well at least not to America and its founding values. But if you are for America First, you are truly looked upon and classified by the agents of Intolerance as Terrorist to the New World Odor.

Nothing we said since 1994 has changed. Every day that passes, only confirms that.
pk

share.gif
Today, we look at a third threat—the “sovereign citizen” extremist movement. Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.

This causes all kinds of problems—and crimes. For example, many sovereign citizens don’t pay their taxes. They hold illegal courts that issue warrants for judges and police officers. They clog up the court system with frivolous lawsuits and liens against public officials to harass them. And they use fake money orders, personal checks, and the like at government agencies, banks, and businesses.

That’s just the beginning. Not every action taken in the name of the sovereign citizen ideology is a crime, but the list of illegal actions committed by these groups, cells, and individuals is extensive (and puts them squarely on our radar). In addition to the above, sovereign citizens:

Sovereign citizens are often confused with extremists from the militia movement. But while sovereign citizens sometimes use or buy illegal weapons, guns are secondary to their anti-government, anti-tax beliefs. On the other hand, guns and paramilitary training are paramount to militia groups.

During the past year, we’ve had a number of investigative successes involving sovereign citizens. A few recent cases:

*
In Sacramento, two sovereign citizens were convicted of running a fraudulent insurance scheme. Operating outside state insurance regulatory guidelines, the men set up their own company and sold “lifetime memberships” to customers, promising to pay any accident claims against their “members.” The company collected millions of dollars, but paid out very few claims. More
*
In Kansas City, three sovereign citizens were convicted of taking part in a conspiracy using phony diplomatic credentials. They charged customers between $450 and $2,000 for a diplomatic identification card, which would bestow upon the holder “sovereign” status—meaning they would enjoy diplomatic immunity from paying taxes and from being stopped or arrested by law enforcement. More
*
In Las Vegas, four men affiliated with the sovereign citizen movement were arrested by the Nevada Joint Terrorism Task Force on federal money laundering, tax evasion, and weapons charges. The investigation involved an undercover operation, with two of the suspects allegedly laundering more than a million dollars from what they believed was a bank fraud scheme. More

You can help. First, “be crime smart”—don’t fall for the bogus claims and scams of sovereign citizens. And second, if you have information on any suspicious activities or crimes, please contact us.

DETROIT - An FBI agent who led the investigation of nine Michigan militia members charged with trying to launch war against the federal government couldn't recall many details of the two-year probe yesterday during questioning by defense lawyers.

Even the judge who must decide whether to release the nine until trial was puzzled.

"I share the frustrations of the defense team … that she doesn't know anything," U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said after agent Leslie Larsen confessed she hadn't reviewed her notes recently and couldn't remember specific details of the case.

Judge Roberts is hearing an appeal of another judge's order that has kept members of so-called Hutaree militia in jail since their arrest in late March.

The indictment says the nine planned to kill police officers as a steppingstone to a widespread uprising against the federal government.

Defense lawyers, however, say their clients are being punished for being outspoken.

Prosecutors fought to keep Ms. Larsen off the witness stand, saying the defendants had no legal right to question her.

But the judge said the agent's appearance was appropriate because the burden is on defense lawyers to show their clients won't be a threat to the public if released.

The nine lawyers asked specific questions about each defendant. Ms. Larsen said she had not listened entirely to certain recordings made by an undercover agent who infiltrated the group.

She said that because they were still being examined, she didn't know if weapons seized by investigators last month were illegal.

At other times, Ms. Larsen couldn't answer questions because she said she hadn't reviewed investigative reports.

Defense lawyer William Swor asked if the No. 1 defendant, Hutaree leader David Stone, had ever instructed anyone to make a bomb.

"I can't fully answer that question," the agent replied.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Tukel defended Ms. Larsen, telling the judge it wasn't clear until Monday that she would testify.

Judge Roberts, however, said she told the government to be prepared last week.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet played an audiotape of what he said were several militia members talking freely about killing police.

The participants talked over each other, often laughed and made goofy noises and disparaging remarks about law enforcement.

Prosecutors objected to questions about interpreting the secretly recorded conversations, but the judge said they were fair game.

The judge will resume the court hearing today.

Prosecutors will have a chance to question people who are willing to be responsible for some of the nine if they are released from jail.

The ATF is attempting to link a Michigan gun dealer to the Hutaree “militia,” the group charged with plotting to kill local police. “A Michigan-based firearms dealer indicted this week on an unrelated federal gun charge had sold about a half dozen weapons to members of the extremist Hutaree militia group that was plotting to assassinate police,” writes Michael Isikoff for Newsweek.

gunshow3.jpg

The government and its corporate media are attempting to link entirely legal gun dealers and shows to “hate groups” that support and defend the Second Amendment.

The FBI-infiltrated Hutaree was not a militia. The group was denounced by real militias in Michigan and across the country.

Isikoff reports the government has zero evidence that Walter Priest, owner of Gun Outfitters in Adrian, Michigan, “was in any way involved or even aware of the Hutarees’ bizarre plans — as alleged by federal prosecutors — to ‘wage war’ against the U.S. government,” he writes.

The case against Priest, Newsweek and Isikoff argue, “sheds new light on the Hutarees’ scary antigovernment passions (shared by more than a few militia groups), particularly their hatred of the beleaguered federal agency that enforces the country’s gun laws: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).”

Militias, however, are not alone in their contempt for the ATF and its ongoing effort to nibble away at the edges of the Second Amendment — millions of Americans not associated with the militia movement are outraged over federal efforts to trash the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Fear and loathing of the agency, according to Newsweek, “helped fuel the militia movement” and the NRA “egged on” the anti-government militia movement by characterizing the ATF as “jackbooted government thugs.”

“Now, some watchdog and gun-control groups fear, those passions may be returning, helping to stoke an apparent resurgence of extremist militia and patriot groups united in their zealous opposition to any firearms enforcement,” writes Isikoff.

In the 1990s, the government and the corporate media created the myth of dangerous and seditious militia groups gunning for the government. The alleged Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was in fact a government operative. He was not associated with any militia group and was denounced by many of them.

Since the appointment of Obama, the government and corporate media (using fallacious figures provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center) have hysterically claimed there is a “resurgence of extremist militia and patriot groups.”

In fact, since at least 2006, there has been a “resurgence” of opposition to a federal government in violation of the Constitution. Isikoff, Newsweek, and the rest of the Mockingbird corporate media are tasked with portraying this growing “antigovernment” movement as extremist gun nuts who share the ideology of the FBI-infiltrated Hutaree and pose a threat.

According to the ATF Walter Priest sold a Remington rifle with the serial number altered or obliterated. The ATF conducted an “inspection” (harassment) of Gun Outfitters in November 2008, well before the Hutaree appeared on the government’s radar screen. “Looks like the ATF enforcers are looking for a reason to start a firefight,” David Brian Stone, called “Captain Hutaree” by the corporate media, allegedly wrote in an email. “And we will answer the call.” The email was read in court by a federal prosecutor, according to the Detroit News.

The government now claims Priest and the Hutaree “knew each other” and that Gun Outfitters had sold members of the group about five handguns and one semiautomatic rifle — all legal under the Second Amendment.

In other words, according to the government, “extremist militia and patriot groups” are in league with entirely legal gun dealers and this may result in the death of police officers and government officials. Isikoff and Newsweek do not say this but the allusion is there.

Isikoff admits the story about Priest and his supposed connection to the Hutaree has so far “received no national attention… because there is no evidence that he was in any way involved or even aware of the Hutarees’ bizarre plans.”

The Newsweek article is an attempt to change that.

The story is part of an ongoing process to demonize gun dealers and in particular gun shows and fallaciously link them to fanciful “right-wing extremists” and white supremacist groups miniscule in number and not only riddled with agents provocateurs but in many instances created by the government, as the Hal Turner case demonstrated.

DETROIT - An FBI agent who led the investigation of nine Michigan militia members charged with trying to launch war against the federal government couldn't recall many details of the two-year probe yesterday during questioning by defense lawyers.

Even the judge who must decide whether to release the nine until trial was puzzled.

"I share the frustrations of the defense team … that she doesn't know anything," U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said after agent Leslie Larsen confessed she hadn't reviewed her notes recently and couldn't remember specific details of the case.

Judge Roberts is hearing an appeal of another judge's order that has kept members of so-called Hutaree militia in jail since their arrest in late March.

The indictment says the nine planned to kill police officers as a steppingstone to a widespread uprising against the federal government.

Defense lawyers, however, say their clients are being punished for being outspoken.

Prosecutors fought to keep Ms. Larsen off the witness stand, saying the defendants had no legal right to question her.

But the judge said the agent's appearance was appropriate because the burden is on defense lawyers to show their clients won't be a threat to the public if released.

The nine lawyers asked specific questions about each defendant. Ms. Larsen said she had not listened entirely to certain recordings made by an undercover agent who infiltrated the group.

She said that because they were still being examined, she didn't know if weapons seized by investigators last month were illegal.

At other times, Ms. Larsen couldn't answer questions because she said she hadn't reviewed investigative reports.

Defense lawyer William Swor asked if the No. 1 defendant, Hutaree leader David Stone, had ever instructed anyone to make a bomb.

"I can't fully answer that question," the agent replied.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Tukel defended Ms. Larsen, telling the judge it wasn't clear until Monday that she would testify.

Judge Roberts, however, said she told the government to be prepared last week.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet played an audiotape of what he said were several militia members talking freely about killing police.

The participants talked over each other, often laughed and made goofy noises and disparaging remarks about law enforcement.

Prosecutors objected to questions about interpreting the secretly recorded conversations, but the judge said they were fair game.

The judge will resume the court hearing today.

Prosecutors will have a chance to question people who are willing to be responsible for some of the nine if they are released from jail.